Relationship between radiographic techniques (kilovolt and milliampere-second) and CTDI(VOL).

To investigate the relationship between radiographic techniques (i.e. kilovolt and milliampere-second) and the corresponding volume computed tomography dose index (CTDI(vol)). Data were obtained for CTDI(vol) for head and body phantoms from the ImPACT CT patient dosimetry calculator for 43 scanners from four major vendors of medical imaging equipment (i.e. GE, Philips, Siemens and Toshiba). CTDI(vol) were obtained with the largest X-ray beam width, and using a CT pitch of unity. For each scanner, relative values of CTDI(vol) were also computed as a function of X-ray tube voltage, normalised to unity at 120 kV. The average CTDI(vol) for 43 commercial scanners was 167 + or - 44 microGy (mA s)(-1) for the head phantom and 78 + or - 22 microGy (mA s)(-1) for the body phantom. The 90th percentile CTDI(vol) values are approximately twice the corresponding 10th percentile values for both head and body phantoms. Over the last 20 y, the head phantom CTDI(vol) has increased approximately 50 % and the body phantom CTDI(vol) has increased approximately 90 %. For both, the head phantom and the body phantom, CTDI(vol) is proportional to kilovolt(2.6). CT output must be specified using CTDI(vol) because for a fixed kilovolt and milliampere-second, CT scanner outputs (CTDI(vol)) differ by about a factor of 2. Increasing the X-ray tube voltage from 80 to 140 kV increases CTDI(vol) by about a factor of 4.

[1]  W Huda,et al.  Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Borut Marincek,et al.  Characterization of Urinary Stones With Dual-Energy CT: Improved Differentiation Using a Tin Filter , 2010, Investigative radiology.

[3]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) accreditation program: practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. , 2004, Medical physics.

[4]  Walter Huda,et al.  Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. , 2008, Radiology.

[5]  N. Paul,et al.  Assessment of in-stent restenosis using 64-MDCT: analysis of the CORE-64 Multicenter International Trial. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT? , 2002, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[7]  W. Huda,et al.  X-ray beam filtration, dosimetry phantom size and CT patient dose conversion factors , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  E. Samei,et al.  Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm--initial clinical experience. , 2010, Radiology.

[9]  S. Schindera,et al.  Detection of Pulmonary Emboli With CT Angiography at Reduced Radiation Exposure and Contrast Material Volume: Comparison of 80 kVp and 120 kVp Protocols in a Matched Cohort , 2009, Investigative radiology.

[10]  M. Dewey,et al.  Comparison between the image quality of multisegment and halfscan reconstructions of non-invasive CT coronary angiography. , 2009, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  W. Leitz,et al.  Computed Tomography Dose Assessment - A Practical Approach , 1995 .

[12]  Thomas B. Shope,et al.  A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. , 1981 .

[13]  W. Veldkamp,et al.  16-slice CT: achievable effective doses of common protocols in comparison with recent CT dose surveys. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.  AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.